You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Senator Arlen "Iscariot" Specter Preparing To Sue Bush
2006-07-25
A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush's signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.
Hey, way to thank your benefactor, Arlen.
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor. Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action. Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds. "That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," said ABA president Michael Greco. The practice, he added "is harming the separation of powers."

Bush has challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled by Specter's committee. The ABA estimated Bush has issued signing statements on more than 800 statutes, more than all other presidents combined. Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws. But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Still, the White House said signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law. "A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, 'We're not going to enact the law.'"
Posted by:Anonymoose

#21  Some drunk Mass/RI/Conn Congresscritter please run over Arlen Spectre, and back up to see what you hit. Ten or twelve times.

Thank You
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-07-25 20:06  

#20  I'm opposed to "signing statements", period. If the President feels that a bill is bad, he should veto it. Not sign the damn thing with a caveat.

It would appear to be a de facto line-item veto.
Posted by: eLarson   2006-07-25 21:39  

#19  
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-07-25 20:06  

#18  The content of the 'signing statement' may be of interest to SCOTUS if it ever gets that far.
Posted by: KBK   2006-07-25 19:37  

#17  How can Congress undertake "judicial review" - isn't that a job of the judiciary branch?

I'll take a whack at an answer: Judicial Review is the job of the Supreme Court only because the Supreme Court said so (Marbury v Madison).
Posted by: eLarson   2006-07-25 16:21  

#16  if the bills being signed may, in GWB's opinion have unconstitutional items AND specter wants to make something of it, perhaps the congress should review them before passing. last time i checked there were more lawyers in concress than in the white house and a lawyer SHOULD know how to read and interpret the law (sorry about stealing some of Joe's uppercase letters. He probably has several steamer trunks full laying around somewhere, however).
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-07-25 14:25  

#15  It would only be a point if the president had changed the law on his own whim. He cannot do it. He can fail to enforce the laws faithfully. The remedy is for Congress to impeach him. Otherwise, Arlen should STFU.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-25 12:59  

#14  The only semi-expert opinion Specter has is on Scottish Law. Not proven. Case closed. Retire.
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-07-25 12:53  

#13  I really think Specter has a point. Pres can't change a law on his own whim.
Posted by: texhooey   2006-07-25 12:36  

#12  The Doctor seems to have a pretty good grasp on the subject.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-25 11:29  

#11  This asshat is now a total joke in the Senate. I think the cancer ate away his brain.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-07-25 11:27  

#10  Doctor, I think you will find that in this case the American people will overwhelm Senator Specter in such a way that both interested senators and judges shit their pants and sober up before the people are forced to act.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-07-25 11:08  

#9  
I'm opposed to "signing statements", period. If the President feels that a bill is bad, he should veto it. Not sign the damn thing with a caveat.

The whole friggin mess, all three Branches of the Government are all munged up by conniving politicians. The whole place needs a house cleaning and some head chopping. Christ!

-M
Posted by: Manolo   2006-07-25 11:08  

#8  All right, I'm out of a very long period of lurking to ask a question of the professors at Rantburg U.

How does this work under the idea of the separation of powers? *If* this was to pass in Congress, would we not essentially have one branch dragging another in front of the third? How can Congress undertake "judicial review" - isn't that a job of the judiciary branch? I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that this tramples all over the idea - hence my inquiry.

Further, who cares what Bush has to say? I mean, really? So he thinks part of a law may be unconstitutional - so what? That's not a binding judgement of any kind since he's not a judge. It's just his opinion - and as for those notes about things he may have to do in the interests of national security - well, hell, we're in a war, and the president has the power to execute that war, him being Commander-in-Chief and all. I'm not saying that Congress and the courts should completely stay out of his business - that probably would end up being unconstitutional - but if Bush tried some of the things Lincoln did, the Senate and the courts would doubtless be whining. And in any case, exactly why can't Congress respond to one of his signed statements? They respond to everything else . . .
Posted by: The Doctor   2006-07-25 10:23  

#7  But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

Hmmm so Spector does not like the fact that the pres is looking out for the Constitution and National Security. Go figure.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-25 09:20  

#6  What a dipwad! He is in the wrong party. Hell, he is in the wrong reality.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-07-25 08:06  

#5  This will back fire on Snarlin Arlen. He can't deny bush his first amendment rights. Bush can say whatever he wants, but he must also faithfully execute the laws and has.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-25 07:44  

#4  My personal preferred solution to this sort of problem is extrajudicial.
Posted by: cruiser   2006-07-25 02:45  

#3  Snarlin Arlen shows his true colors. And keep in mind the *only* reason Specter is still a Senator is because Bush personally stumped for him during the primaries. Otherwise Toomey would have won.
Posted by: Iblis   2006-07-25 01:07  

#2  Imperialistic assholes inthe senate, regardless of party. Somone needs to reign in the senate, ban fillibusters, and stop the damned obstructianism that makes the Senate nearly useless and easey to hide sleaze in - an instituttion becoming rife with corrpution.

Posted by: Oldspook   2006-07-25 00:56  

#1  With RINOs like Specter, who needs donks
Posted by: Captain America   2006-07-25 00:32  

00:00